President Barack Obama sharply criticized efforts in Michigan to make the state the second right-to-work state in the Midwest in speech Monday in Redford, Mich.

“What we shouldn’t do–I just gotta say this–what we shouldn’t be doing is trying to take away your rights to bargain for better wages and working conditions,” Obama said in the speech, which was meant to be on fiscal cliff issues. “We shouldn’t be doing that.”

“You know, these so-called right-to-work laws don’t have to do with economics, they have to do with politics,” Obama continued. “What they’re really talking about is giving you the right to work for less money.”

Obama makes it sound as though Michigan is going to deny workers there the right to join a union and bargain for better compensation. But that’s not what right to work legislation does. What it does is allow workers to decide whether or not they want to belong to a union.

Shouldn’t workers have that right too? Shouldn’t they get to decide if they want to pay union dues?

Of course, Democrats think union dues should be mandatory from workers, given how much money the unions funnel into electing Democrats. And Michigan, the home to one of the largest and most influential private sector unions in the nation the UAW, would be a particularly tough loss for them. But as a non-partisan, non-political point of principle why shouldn’t workers be able to choose when it comes to joining a union?

If the union is so great for workers, then surely the workers will happily sign up to pay dues to support it? Given the national decline in union membership, maybe workers are deciding that the unions and their dues and their activism aren’t really what’s best for them?

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters.

The same tired lies, the same propaganda they use time and again… “taking away workers’ right to organize”…. what a crock of $#%t.

Let em’ organize if they like… let em dole out their hard earned $$ for union bosses to go to all expenses paid junkets (aka “seminars” or “conventions”) in Las Vegas, Tahoe… or some other vacation location.

And when they get good and sick of it…. legislate mandatory laws protecting unions.

Unions…. used to serve a purpose. Now for the most part they’re a tool of the left and a cancer.

ND in MD

Translation:
What we are really talking about, if you are not forced into a union, is I loose the ability to have your union leaderships rape you paycheck and give the money to me. You may actully donate money to people and causes you care about or supoort your belief system.

$8194357

Of course not…..

Communists love unions….

Individual rights to work must be “organized” after all…

Its just what a community organizer (communist operative) does….
But its just a conspirecy therory tin foil hat fruit cake would believe in so don’t worry..

Can you say third world of color communist boys and girls?
The New Left Democrats like Ayers and the Weathermen could….
The global left just loves it when a plan (agenda) comes together huh…

For decades, it was one of the enduring disputes of South Africa’s anti-apartheid struggle. Was Nelson Mandela, the leader of the African National Congress, really a secret Communist, as the white-only government of the time alleged? Or, as he claimed during the infamous 1963 trial that saw him jailed for life, was it simply a smear to discredit him in a world riven by Cold War tensions?

Now, nearly half a century after the court case that made him the world’s best-known prisoner of conscience, a new book claims that whatever the wider injustice perpetrated, the apartheid-era prosecutors were indeed right on one question: Mr Mandela was a Communist party member after all.

The former South African president, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1993, has always denied being a member of the South African branch of the movement, which mounted an armed campaign of guerrilla resistance along with the ANC.

sbark

It comes full circle to another victim “group” for class envy…….rather than Individualism that made this country what ……..it used to be

kevindf

What does Obama have against “rights?”

Thresherman

This means a reduction in the amount of money Democrats get, of course he is POed. Just another example of the real greed liberals ignore.

Samuel Gompers

Can right to work laws insure that workers may enjoy a joint, or two, or a 40 oz, on their break? If not, I say phooey, on any law that does not protect these basic American privileges.

Onslaught1066

You know, you have an excellent point.

Why are teachers unions not protecting teachers who are having sex with their students, it is after all, the opinion of democrats that two people in love should not have to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous morality, is it not?

Seems to me that an overhaul of our cherished union institution is in order… to protect our precious proletariat, of course.

$8194357

Bill Ayers and Drummond Pikes New left communist American dream, huh?

Communist people of color unite in your “cadres” while the “vangaurd”

propagandize the “targets of choice”……

What a brave new world the marxist/democrats have social engineered for us…

Jeffrey Immelt, Chairman and CEO of General Electric and Chairman of the White House Council on Jobs and Competitiveness was interviewed by Charlie Rose on Bloomberg Television Monday evening. When asked about China, Immelt praised the Chinese and their centrally planned economy:
CHARLIE ROSE: China is changing. It may be being stabilized as we speak. What does that mean for China and what does it mean for the United States? Should it change expectations?
JEFF IMMELT: It is good for China. To a certain extent, Charlie, 11 percent is unsustainable. You end up getting too much stimulus or a misallocation of resources. They are much better off working on a more consumer-based economy, less dependent on exports. The one thing that actually works, state run communism a bit– may not be your cup of tea, but their government works.